linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160715152937.GB3115@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:29:37 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc tree

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:24:36PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Seems ok, but I'll reinstate this:
> 
> #if BITS_PER_LONG != __BITS_PER_LONG
> #error Inconsistent word size. Check asm/bitsperlong.h
> #endif

Confuses me; why do we have two?

Why not then do:

#define BITS_PER_LONG __BITS_PER_LONG

and be done with it?